Laserfiche WebLink
22. The last paragraph on page 2.05-73 should be updated to more clearly reflect current wildlife concerns. <br />The "increasing wildlife populations" and related management concerns should more specifically be <br />identified as "increasing big game populations, primarily elk". The concern with respect to sagegrouse <br />and mining in the region, is still related to potential negative impacts of mine development on <br />populations, and on the reclamation of suitable habitat for sagegrouse. Please update the section as <br />appropriate. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />Comment noted - corrections to text made as appropriate. <br />Rule 4.15 Revegetation Performance Standards <br />23. The reference to use of introduced species for small area erosion control at the discretion of Colowyo's <br />reclamation coordinator in amended Section 4.15.2, should be qualified by the statement that DRMS <br />approval (via appropriate revision of the permit) would be obtained prior to such use. Please amend the <br />narrative as appropriate. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />Comment noted - corrections to text made as appropriate. <br />24. The statement in Section 4.15.4 indicating that Colowyo currently does not utilize contour furrows on <br />reclaimed slopes does not correspond to narrative under "Topsoil Redistribution Plan" on amended <br />pages 2.05-46 and 2.05-47, nor to the statement on amended page 2.05-59 indicating that, without use of <br />a mulch, erosion control has been maintained with surface manipulation methods such as contour <br />furrows, drainage benches and permanent drainage channels. Please revise the various narrative <br />sections as appropriate, and to be internally consistent. Given the relatively long steep slopes <br />depicted in the postmining topography for portions of the South Taylor revision area, some <br />combination of mulching and surface manipulation methods would appear to be warranted. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />Comment noted - corrections to text made as appropriate. <br />25. There is a lack of clarity in amended Section 4.15.7 and 4.15.8 regarding which areas of the original <br />permit area and which areas of the South Taylor expansion area would be compared using a single <br />specified reference area (the sagebrush reference area), pursuant to Rule 4.15.7(4)(a), and which areas <br />would be compared using the weighted average approach with multiple reference areas, pursuant to Rule <br />4.15.7(4)(b). In Section 2.10 of the original application, and Sections 2.10 and 4.15 of the South Taylor <br />revision Volume 12 (submitted in PR-2), narrative states that that the weighted average approach would <br />be used for the original permit area (using the sagebrush and mountain shrub reference areas), and that a <br />"targeted reference area" comparison, using only the sagebrush reference area would be used for the <br />South Taylor expansion area (due to focus on reestablishment of sagebrush grassland habitat in the <br />expansion area). <br />Text in amended Section 4.15.7 and 4.15.8 of Volume 1 conflicts with the Volume 12 narrative cited, <br />and lacks the necessary clarity.